Yes it sounds crazy and illogical. Just like focing the player to wear fisheye glasses. That's an example/analogy.
I did play bf2 and you're right. Such a harsh bullet spread isn't nececary in Squad to balance out a 20% increase in maximum engagement distance.
Depth Haze is realisitc and can actually occure in reality, fisheye glasses most likely not.
Yes. This is depth haze. Unnecessarily stronk depth haze for that matter.

You're constructing a strawman argument. I never advocated for a 1:1 ratio to real life.
I stated my experience with a 4k 32" compared to a 2,5k 24" monitor in Squad and ArmA3 and then proposed possible solutions to a real problem. It may not be a common occurence but it's non the less a problem disrupt the balance of the whole gunplay.
Limiting the maximum fighting range by level design is certainly not an option. This is a combined arms Game, not a pure Infantry game. By doing so, you would inevatably nerf all vehicles even further. They are already not as effective as they should be / countered easily by above avarage players.
5 out of 6 of your examples aren't implemented yet due to time constraints and the fact that this game isn't released. Those feature will inevitable become more realistic and complex. That was the plan anyway.
Why the torque of vehicles is increased compared to real life counterparts? I don't know. I'm not a Dev. But i can tell you that that is not limiting me as a player in any case.
One Example: Wheeled vehicles are too fast in comparison to tracked vehicles and are disrupting the gameplay. You have two solutions.
removing every fourth wheel from every wheeled vehicle (cripeling the vehicle)
reducing the power output of those vehicles (balancing the vehicle)
The Developer chooses option 1). Now, since the Developer isn't aming at a 1:1 realistic game, this should not be a issue, right? Why is taking away the ablility to see propperly diffrent?
In a game like Battlefield, this would be less of a prolbem. Tracked vehicles could get a hover function as a solution and nobody would bat an eye. Battlefield is neither realistic nor authentic. Squad is.
The only thing the lack of zoom accomplishes is artificially making ironsighted weapons inferiour to sighted weapons and increasing demand of third party zoom tools.
The maximum engagement distance for iron sighted weapons is around 200-250 meters. = comfotable range for ironsighted weapons
The maximum engagement distance for sighted weapons is between 400-500 meters. = comfotable range for sighted weapons
Doubleing the zoom won't make it possible to hit targets at 800 meters. This is because of ballsitics and weapon system limitations.
How Assault Rifles Ballistics work in the real world (simplyfied):
Increasing the zoom to 2x (90° -> 45°) wouldn't change sighted weapons much, because of the given limitations of the weapon system. There simply isn't enough room for improvement.
What would increase, is the ablity to make out enemies i.e. spotting them.
Additionally to the limitations of the Rifle, limitations of the ironsights and optics play another role. Some iron-sights wont allow a zeroing up to 1000meters. Example: L85a2 iron is limited to 200 meters. Increasing zoom won't affect the maximum engagement distance for this weapon in any kind.
The maximum egangement distance would probalby change on a whole as following:
iron-sighted weapon: 200-500 meters.
sighted weapons: 400-600 meters. (1P29 optical sight on AK's is limited to 400 meters)
^This is still short of real life figures. This would not make the game into a simulation. Ironsights in reality aren't as frustrating as they are in Squad and many older games. Optics are not supposed to convert a Assualt Rifle into a Marksmen Rifle. Thats why the russian Military - up to this day - is still mostly using iron sighted ak-74m's. It's not because they are poor or don't care about the regular soldier. It's because ironsights work quite nicely with Assault Rifles.
sighted weapons will retain a advantage over iron-sighted weapons in firefights at the maximum engagement distance. Additionally it'll still be easier to make out enemies with sighted weapons. The overall engagement distance would increase by ~ 20% tops.
Rapid (fully automatic) fireing at anything but close range would still be much easier with sighted weapons.
If you now use a 32" (4k) over a 24" (FullHD) monitor you'll get an additional zoom of ~1.5x. This would correspond to a 30° FoV on a 24" (FullHD) monitor
You wouldn't get a significant benefit from either iron sighted nor sighted weapons. They are already close to their limit.
Now you can artificially increase or decrease this limit by adjusting the bullet spread and thus reducing the maximum effective range.
This - in my Opinion - is how things should be balanced in a realisitc shooter. Reducing the ablity to see or taking away basic features is a less elegant way to do it in a above avarage realistic Shooter.
Now, this is one of the three suggestions i made. No opionions to the other two?

Alright, let's try it another way. Do you know the effective range, maximum effective range and the "comfortable" range of a AK-47, Colt M4 or any Assault Rifle is?
edit: I'm asking because i need to be sure what gap you're talking about.

You're implying that increasing zoom also increases your weapon accuracy. That is not correct. Like i said. Weapon accuracy has to be the limiting factor if you want a even playing field in this matter.
Sorry, but i still think that 1k+ 4k Users and OWI Game Testers would've noticed something. I didn't get what youre saying at first.
Never said that we should take away or ban 4k monitors. That is what you thought. I actually states some solutions that have nothing to do with penalizing 4k monitor players.
144Hz vs 60Hz does not compare to this, since you're not actually gaining additional detail through a higher refresh rate. It's also not a matter that can be easily solved or improved, like in this case.
Lets take a 24" Monitor: 530mm wide and 300mn high. You're sitting 720mm away from it.
Now take a wall, make a 530x300mm hole in it and position your head 720 away from it.
Your visible horizontal FoV now decreased from ~114° (human eye) to ~41°, but the proportions of objects behind the wall stayed the same, right?
Now, do the same ingame: reduce fov to 41° and remain at a distance of 720mm.
Now objects in real life and in the virtual world are excactly proportional to each other. Compared to default the picture appears zoomed in.
If you now park a toyota hilux at a distance of 1km in game and in real life, they will appear to have the excact same size in both cases. You now have a natural FoV.
i could've copied the mathematical formula to calculate the natural FoV, but i thing this makes it clearer.
In Arma you can switch between a defautl FoV (which factores in your periphery) and a natural FoV (which is not perfect, since it does not accout for monitors of diffrent sizes and therefore simply takes a median FoV.).
This natural FoV makes it much easier to approximate distances and is therefore very important for Simulations in particular. This is excactly what the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive is doing to prevent nausia.
edit: To get the lowest possible FoV in Squad (i think its 90°) to appear natural, you'd have to position your head ~260mm away from the monitor. Just so you can get a sense of the relations.
edit2: I also did not say that i want a natural FoV by any means possible. It's just one of the options, which i would prefer.
I also tidied up the quotes.

Cheaters make up a small percentage of any given multiplayer game. Should they not be dealt with as well?
Same goes for glitchers and bugusers, should we ignore patching the game?
This is a interresting statistic, but what does it proof or disproof?

Hey,
after OWI banned reshade for the zoom exploit, i'm curious to how far they are willing to go to balance for different monitors? It seems close to their heart.
As we know, OWI isn't going to implement a natural FoV (ArmA style) and Squad will continue using a mostly fixed Field of View (with the exception of mounted weaponory, the available scopes and the rare binoculars).
This way the limiting factor in long distance firefights isn't the inaccuracy of weapons, but the resolution and size of you monitor.
I recently had a oppurtunity to borrow a huge Acer XB1 32" 4k 60Hz Monitor (compared to my 24" FullHD 144hz monitor). Again, it's a huuuuuge monitor and a superb piece of equipment.
And all of a sudden i had a what felt like a immense advantage. I had issues powering it with a single 980ti, but 30-50fps had to suffice.
Even though the FoV didn't change, it did fix my biggest spite with Squad: Visiblity.
Distant enemies are now being rendered by 4-8 pixels instead of 1-2.
Kicked up dust from missed shots finally become (more) visible and it's easier to compensate for the bullet drop/choose the correct zeroing.
You can trace your outgoing and incoming tracer with ease!
= It's pretty much like the reshade zoom-tool as described by OWI in a statement some time ago. Without the blurriness.
In my own opinion, the ability to identifying the enemy first decides a lot of the powerdynamics in gunfights straight away. Oldest trick in the book is taking the enemy by suprise.
By using a greater resolution, a bigger screen and the lowest FoV possible (=90°) at the same time effectively straps an Acog to your forehead. With all the advantages (and perhaps and disadvantages?).
(edit: here comes sarcasm) For two weeks i had a blast and felt a little dirty inside. How is that even legal?
At the same time i did not notice as much of an advantage in ArmA3. The powerful stock "zoom" and the variety of equally powerful scopes is enough to compensate for the lack of clarity to some extent. It simply did not bother me as much. This could be my imagination.
There are two (plus one) solutions (that i can think of):
A zoom function (the ability to decrease the FoV on the spot, similar to ArmA).
A depth haze on all maps and layouts.
A Binocular for every nation and class.
(1) OWI mentioned multiple times that a realsitic zoom is not in the works for Squad. That is because they are not aiming to produce a hardcore MilSim and are going for a more casual approach. I myself can't connect the dots between a realistic FoV and a hardcore MilSim experience.
(2) I'm sure that a depth haze would be overwhelmingly unpopular in the community, but it could be the right step in terms of balance.
(3) Would be a compromise. It would be the most conservative solution i can possibly imagine with the least work required.
All three option have the potentionall to reduce some of the frustation, going from the best (1) to worst (3).
I've been thinking about this for months and i've heard similar sprites from people i play with regulary. The implementation of a zoom function should not be merely based on preference, but balance.
Again, huge 4K Monitors are legal! But why is this not being talked about? Neither by the Community nor the Developer.
Anyway - those are my opinions.
Greetings,
moep

Great news, had goosebumps when i saw the snowflakes It's starting to take shape indeed.
But this update does mostly focus on the overall "health" of the game (some essential stuff here) and is meager in the content department (and will be for the months to come ).

Get any quadcore from the 6th Core-I Series onward. Every AMD upgrade that is not ryzen is wasted money.
Got my Kit (i5 6600k, decent z170 mainboard and 16gb ddr4 @ 2133Mhz) used for 280€. A year ago. It can cost even less today. Combined with a GTX780 i'm gpu bound at 50+fps 24/7 and so will you.
@Super Sniper Full Server with highest settings and 1.5 ssaa on a gtx970 = 50-70fps...
[ ] You just mistook a 970 for a 1070 (slight performance diffrence).
[ ] Your 970 is liquid nitrogen cooled, running at 2000+/2000+.
[x] Bullshit

Nah, physically not possible. Try these settings @ full hd don al basrah or Mestia 80p Server and you'll get ~30fps at best. ss 1.25, Settings @ medium and all pp effects "off" on a super overclocked 970 will get you those fps.
Got a 6600k @ 4.7 ghz & gtx 780 classified (~10% slower then a 970 at worst) @ 1328 / 1600 (20+% overclock ) and i use the above settings with ssaa 1.0 and smaa "on" to get 50+ fps at any given moment. And yeah, it ranges between 50-100 fps. Imho the lows are more important then this highs.
OP's system wont get 30 fps with low settings @ full hd on a 80p Server. His hardware is simply too damn slow. That said, it could be playable (30+fps) on a 50p Server or the Training Range. Propably?